Intention

It must always be kept in mind that the intention of the legislature in enacting the Electoral Act, 2010, as amended, as it relates to nomination of candidates for election is to do away with the hitherto prevalent practice of the political parties to do anything in the name of nomination and get away with it including substituting a candidate even after the election in question.

SHUAIBU LAU V. PEOPLES DEMOCRATIC PARTY [PDP] &

(f) as a follow-up to the rule against "ambiguity," if the words of a statute are ambiguous, then the Law Maker's intention must be sought, first, in the statute itself, then in other legislation and contemporary circumstances and by resort to the mischief rule. The A-G of Ekiti State and Ors v. Adewumi and Anor [2002] 1 SC 47, 51; Ugwu v. Ararume [2007] 12 NWLR (Pt. 1048) 365;

My lords, it has been an old dictum in the English Law that even "the devil himself knoweth not the intention of a man (per Bryan C. J. of the Medieval English Courts): Bowen L. J. in 1995, stated further that the state of a man's mind is much a fact as the state of his digestion. See: Edgington v. Fitzmaurice (1985) 29. Ch.D. 459, at 483. It is simple! lt is correct that no one is capable of seeing into anothers mind and of being able to state with absolute certainty what is his intention. Only when a man himself confesses what it was he intended or foresaw do we come close to being sure of what it was, although even then, we may not be always certain, because we may misunderstand him, or he may consciously deceive us or unconsciously deceive himself as to what his real state of mind was. Be that as it may, we must, on a given situation, infer intention from the facts of any particular situation. Intention is not capable of positive proof, it can only be implied from overt acts: See: Setrena V. R. (1951) 13 WACA 132. An intention to kill, for instance, may be inferable from the severity which a matchet blow is struck, as held in: R. V. Omori (1961) 1 ALL NLR 33. An intention to prevent a document from being used as evidence, can be inferred from the deliberate destruction of the document. See: Okuyemi v. C.O.P. (1946) 12 WACA 3. Thus, it is the job of the Courts to get as close as possible to discovering, by such implication, what the accused himself intended.